About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
for talking with us this morning, dr. torrey. he's the founder of the treatment advocacy center. we now go to a live hearing of the senate judiciary committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i want to thank the senator pat leahy for giving us the opportunity to have this hearing today. we are pleased to have such a large audience for the hearing. it demonstrates the importance of this issue. at the outset, i want to note that the rules of the senate prevent outbursts or clapping or demonstrations of any kind during these hearings. there was so much interest in today's hearings that we had to expand opportunity for the audience in an adjoining room. the overflow room is 226 of the dirksen building. i will make opening remarks and give ranking member cruz the same opportunity and then welcome our first witness. we are here to discuss a critically important issue, maybe a very basic question. we venerate in this country are committed to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those who live in amer
of us will get 100% of what we want. democrats, they've got to, you know, make some tough choices too. democrats like me, we've said we're prepared to make some tough cuts and reforms, including the programs like medicare. but if we're willing to compromise, then republicans in the house have to compromise as well. that's what democracy's about. that's what this country needs right now. so -- [applause] let me just make one last point, by the way, for those who are following this. lately some people have been saying, well, maybe we'll just give the president some flexibility. he can make the cuts the way he wants them, and that way it won't be as damaging. you know, the problem is when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months, which represents over a 10% cut in the defense budget in seven months, there's no smart way to do that. there's no smart way to do that. you don't want to have to choose between -- let's see, do i close funding for the disabled kid or the poor kid? do i close this navy ship yard or some other one? when you're doing things in a way that's not smart, you can't g
been an important opportunity for us to really put some considered thought into the proposal. what you have in front of you is better than airplane reading. there are some suggestions in this energy 2020 document that people will look at and they will argue and they will say -- that is one person's view. that is true, that is true. but while we are trying to do is not give you a legislative package starting with initiatives that we are going to kind of clicked off as we move forward. this is really designed to be a discussion blueprint. we want to try to change the conversation. one of the reasons we have to think about changing the conversation is because the energy paradigm has really shifted. think about where we were one decade ago. it was all about scarcity, shortages, and how much dependent we were on foreign sources for our oil. fast forward to where we are today. those once thought of import terminals are looking to the export terminals. we have made considerable gains in terms of our own energy independence, to the point where it is no longer just a slogan that we are talking
how china will surpass us. he said that in the florida senate in 2011 and how we need each other. but that's diplomacy comest you can get a bit of a pass. senator hagel, key was had by the executive commission on china, but talk solely about development issues. rule of law and economic growth is fine. but that's not the job he's getting. he said absolutely nothing about the rise of china. he's also said absolutely nothing about he has had the defense department is going to do with the rise of china in an era of budget cuts to the defense department he supports. it's very troubling, fred has a great way of putting this consensus reality that in a sense it doesn't matter. so did not do the job better and you can take that for granted. japan for the first time in a decade has not just her and run defense budget, modestly $1.6 billion increase. it would be nice to see it continue, but everyone watches very carefully to see the leading indicator, which is us and what we're willing to do. taiwan is a country rushing to the exit to make sure nothing comes between it and china and theref
expressed concerns that now that the strikes are being used at lower levels, arguably, that they are creating a backlash that is undermining the credibility of government and creating new terrorists when a neighbor or family member is killed in the course of the operations. do you agree with general mcchrystal and director hayden about the backlash of strikes from the targeted killings at this point? i am not talking about the initial strikes. >> that is something that we need to be mindful of in terms of reaction, any type of u.s. counter-terrorism activities that involve the dropping of ordnance. whether it is a remotely piloted aircraft or man, we need to take that into account, but i would not agree with those statements because what we have found in many areas is that the people are being held hostage to outcry that in these areas and have welcomed the work that the government has done to rid them of the al qaeda cancer that exists. >> finally today, this committee received the olc memos justification, labo that, many of us who have been on the committee longer th
said. but it is a clear path toward legal status. for those who are already in the u.s. working and paying taxes. it's a process for family reunification. it's a workable employment verification system with penalties for employers who knowingly hire people who are not in status. it is a reasonable enforcement, but i just want to say this and i want to invite congressman polis to react. we put about $18 billion into border stuff so far. i mean, one of the real things about comprehensive immigration reform is we hear people talk about the border, the border, the border. president obama has done tons on the border. for some of us too much. but the border issue is not the problem. the real problem is the other part. i yield to the gentleman from colorado to see if you have any thoughts about this matter. mr. polis: you know, another thing that's important for americans to understand about how 11 million people got here without paperwork and how this continues to occur is that more than half, more than half of the population that lives and works here illegally didn't sneak across a b
hit, maybe there would be enough pressure to begin to engage with to us try to solve some problems like the sequester. host: you call it a bipartisan agreement, sequester. right? the speaker came to the floor yesterday -- guest: what did he say? host: he kept referring to it as the president's sequester. guest: i say -- i'm talking about the fact that where did the sequester come from ultimately? it comes from the budget control act, right? and the speaker is more correct literally than i was because the idea for the sequester in the budget control act came from where? the white house. host: you voted for it, though, right? guest: no. host: it was approved. guest: it was approved. in a bipartisan manner. republicans and democrats. and the speaker supported it. but the speaker is correct. i stand corrected by the speaker. john boehner. maybe he'll say something later on. he is correct, the actual idea of the sequester itself came from president obama and the white house. host: so on twitter, we don't have a spending problem -- 7 >> our video library at c-span.org. the u.s. house has
common use. of course, all guns are dangerous or they would be useless. but a gun that can spray bullets without being reloaded is more dangerous. and the third criterion was how vital it is to self-defense. now, none of those things can be answered in a kind of easy, black and white way, because in a sense the more dangerous a gun is the more useful it also is for self-defense. >> that's a good point. i guess that's what i'm trying to tell the public. could you put up our chart up -- about different guns? i think we all agree that any weapon, one bullet in the hands of a mentally unstable person is one too many, do you agree with that concept? any gun should be denied someone who's mentally unstable? >> yeah. >> i do. >> i think everybody would. and we don't want felons because that's already the existing law. now, a circumstance you've described, the circumstance you found yourself in. there is a case in atlanta recently, dr. tribe are of a lady -- of a lady who was defending her home against a home invader. she was home with twin daughters. she ran up to the closet. she was on the pho
, to enjoy life is heartbreaking. fortunately tucker's mother rescued herself and her son by using the resources that the violence against women act makes available. tucker is now living away from his father in counseling and on his way to a happy and healthy future. time and time again we hear that programs like this break the cycle of domestic violence. we must view this legislation not just as a woman's issue but as a family issue, as a community issue that touches all our lives. it is essential for all past and future victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, that we strengthen and re-authorize the violence against women act. i urge my colleagues to re-authorize an all-inclusive version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i am pleased, mr. speaker, to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman f
these politicians are basing their assumptions on as far as hagel is concerned. he used to be a parity decent sounding person -- decent sounding person. he is not making sense anymore. thank you. host: isaac from new york, democrat line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on hagel and the perspective of young democrats. to hear this man talk was really astounding. i am quite critical of the obama administration in terms of things i have done. in terms of hagel's nomination, i am very impressed. his views on foreign-policy almost seemed to dip -- too far beyond this era. my only feel is that the political parties will bring this ideology down simply because a lot of people are not prepared for it. thank you and have a good day. guest: i think -- i would beg to differ about the too far beyond this era. i had the privilege of working for former secretary of state george schultz. in my estimation, senator hagel's views are consistent with secretary schultz, whom i think is one of the giants of our time. i think they have the same sort of outlook of trying to be pragmatic and take a lo
climate, students will do better. >> for me, asa started this for us, and we can now let -- we cannot let children fall behind. fortunately, there is a lot of evidence that shows kids to have these skills to read better. we have been pointing back to the evidence of why this will improve reading, which is one of our primary goals. we have a great deal of opportunity with the common core. you will not succeed at a richer curriculum without these skills of persistence in problem- solving, ability to work with others. the common core, which you will hear about later today, oopened the other academic are opportunities in which to learn about social and emotional learning. >> we can talk a lot, we have the research and the numbers, but for communities, they need to see it. for us, what i have been doing is encouraging our teachers to inter-visit. i have been encouraging parents to visit different schools where you can see the interrelated this between the curricula, but also a place where people are nice to each other. people need to see it. in october, we had a district- wide conference focus
and civic groups because at least in theory parties are more accountable and tend to use their money to help challenges and are less inclined to support extremist, which is no small matter in today's polarized environment. here we go. thank you. here are some trends i see and how citizen as united plays into them. it did not cause them but it greases the wheels, especially since 2000 to when congress passed the bi-partisan campaign reform act. there is a redistribution of money away from can't attend toward groups. candidates are chiefly responsible but more is spent by others and for a while was political parties but it is non- party groups and citizens united cracked up this dynamic. there are strong incentives for collective action by partisans. national politics today is about high-stakes elections. both parties have a chance to control government and have very different views about what should be done. because of this, parses want to organize and coordinate but campaign finance laws but restraint of that. laws were designed during canada-centered elections and parties to an answer that
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)